Must the Bible Go? by J. O. Corliss

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D.C. · Nov 26, 1903

Must the Bible Go?

By J. O. Corliss

J. O. CORLISS

A FEW years ago Prof. Goldwin Smith raised the question through the Toronto Weekly Sun, as to what would be the probable outcome of the present religious condition of society and the church. Among other things, he spoke thus of the unsettled state of mind regarding Bible doctrines, in which most people are found:—

“Missionary enterprise appears to be flagging, and the cause of its falling off would seem to be, not so much failure of philanthropy or liberality as of confidence in the doctrines of the religion in which the missionary is sent out to propagate. There is a disposition to take up social questions, such as prohibition, in place of those which more properly belong to a church. We are evidently in an era of religious transition, and all great transitions are perilous, though we may have faith in their ultimate tendency for good. It is true that in the theological, as in other fields, unrest is an indication of life. But the life indicated is not that of churches, if church membership is a doctrinal bond.”

Then, assuming that the outcome of this state of affairs will be the rejection of the Bible as a foundation of ethics, the question is raised, “What will take the place of the Bible?” After stating that the settlement of this question will be sought through a symposium, he asks, “What can the answer be but ‘truth’?”

There is no doubt that the religious condition is much as stated by the learned professor, and for this state of things others than the laity are responsible. It is now a very common occurrence, and is considered quite the thing, for the preacher to raise doubts concerning the accuracy of this or that statement of Holy Writ. Even little children are taught in Sunday-school to question the truth of Bible history. For instance, two or three years ago, the Pilgrim Series of Quarterlies, used in the Congregational churches of America, had this note affixed to the first lesson, which was on the creation:—

“We have here not a scientific account of the process of creation, but a brief panoramic vision of its development. No positive scientific explanation of the origin of the world and the introduction of life on it is as yet possible. Sometime it may be able to speak with some definiteness relative to the process, but it can never tell us how or by what power the process was set in motion.”

The next lesson was concerning the flood, which had this for a criticism: “There is every indication in the facts known to science that men never have lived to so great an age as the literal interpretation of this record asserts.”

The entire story of the flood was treated as mere tradition, and not as true because the Bible records it. If this is all the Bible account is worth, then, in the name of reason, why should the Bible be taught at all in Sunday-school, or in any other school for that matter, when its statements are so unreliable? Why not teach the children from the start from some treatise on geology, in which unrestrained, visionary guessing is carried to perfection? It is not wisdom, to say the least, to adopt a text-book as the basis of education, when a great part of the teacher’s effort must be expended in attempts at refutation of the book to be taught. But the enemy of God and his Word knows that no other way is so well calculated to destroy confidence in the only guide to a land of rest.

But now there comes forward a great English churchman, the Bishop of Wakefield, who publicly declares, and that plainly, that the Bible is not to be depended on as a truthful witness. Referring to a recent address he gave at Leeds, on the religious education of children, the London Express of Oct. 23, 1903, says:—

“His lordship recognized the possibility of offending the susceptibilities of some of his hearers, but explained that such wounds as he might inflict would be the wounds of a friend. ‘Some people,’ he added, ‘need wounding before they will awaken and take a proper view of the Bible.’”

The first thing, the bishop thought, was to understand the nature of inspiration. “It is not a verbal, mechanical, absolutely accurate, and infallible inspiration,” he said, though he admitted that the Holy Spirit led the writers to embody in their productions a revelation of God, and the offer of salvation to men in Christ. A strange conclusion indeed for a great mind to arrive at, that God inspired men to give a revelation from him so interwoven with their own fancies that the separation of the two appears quite impossible. In such a case it would seem that God could not have largely cared how his revelation would be received, or he certainly would have given some rule by which his instruction might have been easily distinguished from that which is not his, and which is therefore false. As it is, all has been left for individuals to choose that part which best suits their leanings, and discard the remainder as untrustworthy. It therefore follows that a part of the Book which suits one, and which he believes to be God’s inspiration, may be rejected as uninspired by another, while holding that part to be inspired which the first had repudiated as unworthy of confidence

. It is not strange, therefore, that the bishop came to the following conclusions, which he boldly enunciated:—

‘The Bible is not infallible; the Bible is not necessarily literal and exact; the books were not necessarily written by the authors whose names they bear; these names have absolutely no authority, except old tradition of the Jewish race; many of the books are composite, and some embody older records, like flints in chalk formations; others are by more than one author, and still others admittedly compilations of various historical and traditional accounts.’

If any one can believe all this, it would be easy to appreciate the compliment paid to Charles Darwin, by the bishop, in the statement that he ‘had placed not only scientific, but also religious thought upon an altogether firmer basis.’ For churchmen thus to place undemonstrated theories, misnamed science and religion, on a higher plane than the Bible, is not only to ask men to discard the Book of God as worthless, but also to repudiate the means of grace which have their foundation in that Word alone.

Indeed, the bishop says he would have the Bible taught simply from a literary standpoint, using freely Oriental methods, which would give it a peculiar charm, but to ask children to believe in its accuracy, would be to ‘put a strain upon the intelligence which it could not easily bear.’ In view of such invidious comparisons, to which the ‘uneducated’ are being frequently treated, the question arises, Will the Bible survive the test? No one need have fears on that point. When but one family in all the earth was found to uphold God’s Word amid general unbelief, and consequent moral corruption, these were not permitted to merge into the general mass, and so let the light of the Word die out. When it became necessary to preserve that truth that the ‘seed of the woman’ should bruise the serpent’s head, at the cost of all the world’s inhabitants, God brought a flood to sweep them away, in order to preserve his Word, and make good his promise.

During the Dark Ages, when Bible truth was supplanted by the Platonic vagaries of the ‘schoolmen,’ and the insipid inferences of the ‘fathers,’ God raised up intrepid men who braved death in the act of holding aloft the banner of eternal truth. As in every crisis of the past when God’s Word has been in jeopardy, he has provided against its downfall, so now when the enemy threatens to come against it like a flood, heaven’s resources will not fail to raise up a standard in its behalf. The tracings of prophetic fulfilment will settle the minds of earnest seekers for truth, as nothing else can do. The study of the Bible itself is the best antidote to stop the growth of doubt-seeds, and to establish faith in the accuracy of Bible teaching.

That blessed Book has already outlived by centuries those theories which have been hurled against it, and it is as fresh for the next encounter as it ever has been for those of the past. It therefore stands pre-eminently forth, not only as the champion of truth, but as the power and steadfastness of truth itself.

‘Most wondrous Book! bright candle of the Lord, Marked with the seal of high divinity From first to very last. This lamp from off the everlasting throne Mercy took down, and through the night of time Has shed its fulsome light on man, Beseeching him, with tears and earnest sighs, To read, believe, and live.’